. . . . Pursuant to the recess, the proceedings herein were resumed at 1:30 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 1969, appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .

THE COURT: Let it be noted that the Jury is back, all counsel are present for the
State and the Defense. Are you ready to proceed?

MR. ALCOCK: We are ready, Your Honor.

MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready.

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of Mrs. Parker, the State
offers, files and introduces into evidence the document previously marked for identification as "S-55."

THE COURT: Is there any objection?

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

THE COURT: Let it be received as offered and filed in evidence in this case.

MR. ALCOCK: Can I open it at the page?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Exhibit S-55 exhibited to the Jury.)

MR. ALCOCK: May I approach the bench with Counsel?

THE COURT: You may.

(Bench conference off the record.)

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, before calling the State's next witness, I might announce to
the Court that the matter we are now going into, by law is required to be gone into outside the presence of the Jury, so at this time I would ask the Court to excuse the Jury so that we might enter this area in accordance with the law.

THE COURT: Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs, please.

(Jury excused.)

MR. ALCOCK: The State calls Louis Ivon.

THE COURT: I might state for the record, Mr. Alcock, that prior to taking the bench at
1:30 I was requested by Mr. Panzeca, Associate Defense Counsel, to issue an instanter subpoena for Louis Ivon.

MR. DYMOND: We will cancel it as long as the State is calling him.

MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He is here now, no use to subpoena him.

LOUIS WILLIAM IVON, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: For the record, would you state your full name, please.

A: Louis William Ivon.

Q: Mr. Ivon, by whom are you employed?

A: New Orleans Police Department.

Q: And how long have you been employed by the New Orleans Police Department?

A: Since 1955.

Q: And at this time, Mr. Ivon, are you assigned to the District Attorney's Office?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: In what capacity?

A: As Chief Investigator.

Q: And how long have you been Chief Investigator for the District Attorney's Office?

A: Since 1966.

Q: Am I correct then, Mr. Ivon, that though you are assigned to the District Attorney's Office, you are still a member of the New Orleans Police Department?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Ivon, directing your attention to the date of March 1, 1967, did you have
occasion on that date to see the Defendant Clay Shaw?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see Clay Shaw in the courtroom?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Point to him, please.

A: (Indicating) The man with the glasses right there in the blue suit.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has identified the Defendant Clay
Shaw.

THE COURT: All right. Let it be so noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, approximately, if you can recall, what time of the day on March 1,
did you first see the Defendant?

A: I would believe between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. on the 1st.

Q: And at the time you first saw the Defendant, in whose presence was he, if you can
recall?

A: Andrew Sciambra.

Q: Did you have occasion to see him at any time after that first view of him on that
date, the 1st?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you see the Defendant on that date?

A: In the office, the Investigator's office.

Q: And is that in the District Attorney's Office proper?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Did you have occasion to have a conversation with him at that time?

A: I did.

Q: And in whose presence was the conversation had with the Defendant?

A: Andrew Sciambra.

Q: Can you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conversation lasted?

A: Probably half an hour, 45 minutes.

Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, after this conversation to see the Defendant again?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you see him?

A: In the District Attorney's Office.

Q: Now, specifically in what room or office did you see him after this conversation, if
you can recall?

A: In a smaller officer directly across from the Investigator's office.

Q: Did you have a conversation with him in that office?

A: Yes.

Q: And approximately, Mr. Ivon, what time did that conversation take place?

A: This was approximately 5:00 p.m.

Q: Mr. Ivon, to your knowledge, do you know where the Defendant was between, say,
1:00 o'clock and 5:00 o'clock p.m.?

A: In the District Attorney's Office.

Q: Do you recall what physical location he was in the office?

A: In the Investigator's office, out in the front office, the main office.

Q: Did you personally, or, to your knowledge, did any other member of the District
Attorney's Staff question the Defendant during that entire five-hour period?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you personally question the Defendant?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: During the entire five-hour period?

A: No, no.

Q: Other than the first questioning that you have related to the Court that took
approximately a half hour to 45 minutes, did you have occasion again to question the Defendant?

A: No.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, do you know Salvatore Panzeca when you see him?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Do you see him in the courtroom?

A: (Indicating) The gentleman that just sat down.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated Defense Counsel Mr.
Salvatore Panzeca.

THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you see Mr. Panzeca at all in the District Attorney's Office on the date of March 1, 1967?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you recall approximately what time you saw him?

A: Between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.

Q: And at the time you saw Mr. Panzeca, was anyone with him? That is, the first time you saw him.

A: No.

Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Panzeca con-
ferred with the Defendant at that time?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Did he confer with the Defendant in your presence?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: Do you know what physical location within the District Attorney's Office that they conferred in, if you can recall?

A: No, I can't recall.

Q: Can you approximate for us, Mr. Ivon, about how long they conferred?

A: No.

Q: To your knowledge, and only to your knowledge, Mr. Ivon, do you know why Mr. Panzeca
was present in the office?

A: He was called by Mr. Shaw.

Q: Was this call made in your presence?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Do you recall approximately what time that call was made?

A: The call was made right after I finished speaking with Mr. Shaw, I would say roughly
-- I am approximating -- probably two.

Q: 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall whether or not after this call was made and prior to the arrival of
Mr. Sciambra (sic), whether or not you or any other member of the staff questioned Clay Shaw?

A: To my knowledge, no.

Q: In your presence, had he requested assistance of counsel?

A: Yes, and I advised him to have counsel.

Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon -- and again I realize this would be an approximation on your part -- do you recall approximately how long it was between the call made by the
Defendant Shaw to Panzeca, before Mr. Panzeca arrived?

A: It was some time -- I just don't know how long -- because he attempted to locate
Mr. Wegmann at first; as a last resort he called Mr. Panzeca.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, did you see Mr. Edward Wegmann in the District Attorney's Office on
the evening of March 1, 1967?

A: I seen one of the Wegmanns, (indicating) the gentleman sitting next to Mr. Shaw.

MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated the counsel Mr. Edward Wegmann.

THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recall approximately what time Mr. Wegmann arrived at the office?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Do you recall whether or not it was prior to Mr. Panzeca's entrance into the office
or subsequent to that?

A: I believe he came after Mr. Panzeca.

Q: Mr. Ivon, do you know as a matter of your own personal knowledge whether Mr. Wegmann
was permitted to confer with Mr. Shaw?

A: Yes, sir, he was.

Q: Do you recall where in the office this conversation took place?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conference was?

A: No.

Q: Was Mr. Panzeca still in the District Attorney's Office, to the best of your
recollection, at the time that Mr. Wegmann appeared?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with
their client?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with their
client together?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing your attention again to the date of March 1, 1967, and more
specifically to the evening hours, did you have occasion to place the Defendant Clay Shaw under arrest?

A: Yes.

Q: And where were you physically, and where was he physically, at the time the arrest was effected?

A: He was in the small office directly across from the Investigator's office.

Q: Would this have been the same office that you referred to prior in your testimony?

A: Yes.

Q: At the time that you placed the Defendant under arrest, were either Mr. Panzeca
or Mr. Wegmann present?

A: I believe both were present.

Q: At the time you placed the Defendant under arrest, did you advise him of his
Constitutional rights?

A: Yes.

Q: Subsequent to placing the Defendant under arrest, Mr. Ivon, did you have occasion
to take him anywhere?

A: No.

Q: At the time you advised the Defendant of his Constitutional rights, can you recall
now, or at least essentially recall now, what rights you advised him of at that time?

A: I advised him of his right to remain silent, that anything he might say could possibly be used against him. Of course, his attorneys were present at that time, and
interjected into this, and advised me that the client did not wish to speak.

Q: Do you recall which of the attorneys interjected this?

A: I think it was Mr. Wegmann, I am not sure.

Q: Now I take it then, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Wegmann was close at hand at the time that you advised him of his rights?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, subsequent to the placing of the Defendant under
arrest, to take him to the Central Lockup?

Q: Mr. Ivon, did you walk over to the Central Lockup or ride over in an automobile?

A: In an automobile.

Q: Do you recall whose automobile it was?

A: The District Attorney's.

Q: Do you recall who was in the automobile?

A: Yes. Myself -- I was driving it -- Mr. Oser was sitting in the front with me, Lynn
Loisel in the back seat, Mr. Wegmann and Mr. Shaw.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have
marked for purposes of identification as "State 56," and I ask you if you recognize the scene depicted in this picture?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Where have you seen that scene before?

A: This is when we were taking Mr. Shaw to Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-56.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize any of the persons depicted in that picture?

A: All of them.

Q: Do you see any of the persons depicted in the picture in the courtroom today?

A: Mr. Shaw and Mr. Wegmann.

Q: Who is the other person in the picture?

A: Officer Loisel.

Q: Do you know where this picture was taken?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Mr. Ivon, do you recall whether or not, to the best of your knowledge, this was the
seating arrangement in the back seat of the automobile on the way to the Central
Lockup?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Did you go directly to the Central Lockup?

A: Yes.

Q: During the course of your ride from the Criminal District Court Building to the
Central Lockup, were there any questions asked of the Defendant?

A: No.

Q: Now, what, if anything, did you do, Mr. Ivon, when you arrived at the Central Lockup?

A: Well, we drove around the rear of the Central Lockup, drove in the Central Lockup itself and took him into the Central Lockup.

Q: Mr. Ivon, did you personally have anything to do with the booking of the Defendant
on that occasion?

A: No, I did not.

Q: While at the Central Lockup, did you have occasion to question the Defendant any
further?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Can you tell me, Mr. Ivon, what rooms, if any, you entered into personally while
over at the Lockup on that occasion?

A: Well, the area where you take prisoners at there, also the area where they fingerprint the prisoners, and behind the booking cage of the Central Lockup.

Q: Were you in a position, Mr. Ivon, to see the actual booking of the Defendant in this
case?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you in a position to see the fingerprinting of the Defendant in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see the entire fingerprinting procedure?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Did you recognize the officer who fingerprinted the Defendant in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: What is his name?

A: Aloysius Habighorst.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "S-57," and ask you if you recognize the area
and the scene depicted in this picture?

A: Yes. This is the doorway to the B of I where they fingerprint the prisoners.

Q: Is that in the Central Lockup?

A: Yes, it is.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-57.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating to your activities on that night, that is, the night of March 1, 1967, did you ever have occasion to go through that doorway and on into the room that it
leads to?

A: Yes.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of
identification as "State-58," and I ask you if you recognize this scene.

A: Yes, this is the booking area in Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-58.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you have occasion on the night of March 1 to be in this area at all?

A: Yes.

Q: Is this the area that the Defendant was booked in?

A: Yes.

Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of
identification as "State-59," and I ask you if you recognize the area depicted in that photograph.

A: Yes. This is the B of I where they fingerprint prisoners in Central Lockup.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-59.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating your testimony back to the night of March 1, 1967, did you have occasion at any time during the fingerprinting of the Defendant to be in that room?

A: I was in and out.

Q: Could you estimate for us the longest period of time that you were in during the
fingerprinting of the Defendant?

A: Five, ten minutes.

Q: Do you recall whether or not the physical objects in this picture, that is, the
desk and the other objects, were positioned in this position on the night of March 1, 1967, to the best of your recollection?

A: I would think so, because this desk is in the same place. I sat down there to fill
out some forms.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing you attention again to State-58, which purports to be, by
your testimony, a picture of the booking area of the Central Lockup, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1, 1967, the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within the area shown in S-58?

A: Yes, Mr. Wegmann came into the booking area with us when we drove in.

Q: Now with reference to State-59, which, according to your testimony, is the area in
which the Defendant was fingerprinted, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1 the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within this room?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Again referring you to S-59, which you have testified is the area of the fingerprinting, or the fingerprinting room, do you recall at any time on that night seeing any Assistant District Attorney in that room?

A: No.

Q: Do you recall seeing any member of the New Orleans Police Department assigned to the
District Attorney's Office at that time, in this room?

A: No. I believe I was the only one.

Q: Do you recall, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, where Mr. Loisel went when you were over there at the Central Lockup?

A: No, I don't.

MR. ALCOCK: I tender the witness.

THE COURT: Take this for the record -- I should have placed it there before: The evidence being elicited out of the presence of the Jury is for the purpose of laying a predicate for an inculpatory oral statement. I wanted that to go in the record. You
may proceed, Mr. Dymond.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, is it not a fact that Mr. Shaw's attorneys on March 1 in the District
Attorney's Office instructed him to make no statement at all, and advised you and the other law enforcement officers present that he was to make no statement?

A: He advised me.

Q: I see. Was anyone else within earshot when he advised you?

A: I believe Andrew Sciambra.

Q: I see. And of course Mr. Sciambra was participating in the investigation at
that time, was he not?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, you say that during the fingerprinting procedure you were in and out
of the Bureau of Identification room in the Central Lockup?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how long did the fingerprinting and mugging procedure take?

A: I have no idea.

Q: Well, were you there during the entire procedure, I mean in the building?

A: I was back in Central -- no, I wasn't there the whole time, I believe I left before
he was actually put on the books.

Q: Where were you when he first went into the B of I room, that is, to be printed and
mugged?

A: I believe I was right alongside of him.

Q: Did you go in with him or not?

A: I am not sure; I think I did.

Q: Then how long did you stay in there on that occasion?

A: A couple of minutes, in and out.

Q: A couple of minutes in and out. I mean how long did you stay in there upon your
first trip in?

A: A couple of minutes.

Q: Then where did you go?

A: Out into the outer room where they book the prisoners.

Q: For any particular reason?

A: No. Actually the prisoner was in custody of the Police Department Central Lockup
at that time.

Q: So you were actually finished with the arrest procedure, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, did you have any particular reason for staying around there after he had been
turned over to the Central Lockup?

A: To fill out some forms.

Q: What forms did you have to fill out?

A: Arrest Sheet, Rights of Arrestee form.

Q: How about the Field Arrest Report? Did you fill that out?

A: Not in -- I believe the officer in Central Lockup fill those out.

Q: You are familiar with the Field Arrest Report form, are you not, sir?

A: No, not really.

Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for
identification "D-14," purporting to be the New Orleans Police Department Field Arrest Report, and I ask you whether you are familiar with that.

A: I have seen these forms before.

(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-14.")

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Have you made arrests before, Mr. Ivon?

A: Many times; not since these forms have been in operation.

Q: In other words, would I be correct in saying that you have never filled out one of
these forms?

A: I may have. There is no way I would know.

Q: You don't remember ever having filled one out? Is that right?

A: No.

MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we have sent outside for the original Field Report form on this
case, which a witness has outside.

MR. PANZECA: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?

MR. DYMOND: The original Field Arrest Report on Mr. Shaw.

THE COURT: Do you have it in your presence?

MR. DYMOND: Right out in the hall. Captain Curole has it. We subpoenaed it.

THE COURT: Is it under subpoena duces tecum?

MR. DYMOND: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Can't we ask Captain Curole to come in and let him make his return on the
subpoena?